Warner Bros. wins bid for Bad Robot in $500M Partnership

[Foggy]

I like Abrams, he’s one of the few people using his name to make what he finds interesting instead of marketable. I’d say it’s a good deal for everyone.

[-JKR-]

Originally Posted by mredman

That kind of makes Bad Robot a Warner co-production. So yes they are Warner now and produces for them. Just Like MCU, Lucasfilm does for Disney.

Nope. Not the same.

Disney OWNS Marvel, Lucasfilm, Fox.

Warner Bros. DOES NOT OWN Bad Robot. They will have exclusive access to what Bad Robot comes up with. It's a co-production deal. Which is different. And there MIGHT be an option in there that, if Warner Bros. isn't keen on a project, allows Bad Robot to shop it around town and propose it to other studios.

Originally Posted by Foggy

I like Abrams, he’s one of the few people using his name to make what he finds interesting instead of marketable. I’d say it’s a good deal for everyone.

Agreed. And I'm glad that it went to a company which still has a foot in theatrical releasing.

[BluBonnet]

Originally Posted by mredman

Just crazy you even would want that. Seriously

"I'm crazy, you're crazy we're all crazy. If we weren't crazy, we wouldn't be here!"

Bet you don't know who wrote that.

[The Sovereign]

Originally Posted by ManOfTheForest

How did he "ruin" Star Trek?

His movies don't have any effect on shows, movies, etc. that came before it or after it.

The TNG movies were awful and franchise was dead. Regardless of what the movies themselves were like it, it was the start of the franchise's resurrection.

Besides First Contact, I agree with that. Abrams has done some good and some bad work for Trek, which makes him no different than a long line of people who have been involved with it. At least he didn't trot out some more geezers or use Michael Bolton for theme music.

[mredman]

Originally Posted by aiman04

No, Disney owns Marvel and Lucasfilm. Warner is not buying Bad Robot. Just like Paramount before this, it’s a production deal.

Studios rarely produce their own film/shows, they hire a production company to do it.

Just like a company securing a two-year furniture supply contract for the government offices.

What is the difference. Bad Robot is producing stuff for Warner now. What Bad Robot makes in money. Warner is getting to share with BR. I would say that is the same as owning it. Because they one now.

[Martoto]

Originally Posted by mredman

What is the difference. Bad Robot is producing stuff for Warner now. What Bad Robot makes in money. Warner is getting to share with BR. I would say that is the same as owning it. Because they one now.

Bad Robot made money from selling productions to studios. By buying Bad Robot, Warners now owns whatever Bad Robot produces in the future. Plus any income that Bad Robot is still entitled to from already released productions of theirs.

[mredman]

Originally Posted by Martoto

Bad Robot made money from selling productions to studios. By buying Bad Robot, Warners now owns whatever Bad Robot produces in the future. Plus any income that Bad Robot is still entitled to from already released productions of theirs.

So Warner is getting money from Mission Impossible with the 3rd part and up and Star Wars from Bad Robot like TFA, TLJ and Rise ?

[Martoto]

Originally Posted by mredman

So Warner is getting money from Mission Impossible with the 3rd part and up and Star Wars from Bad Robot like TFA, TLJ and Rise ?

If income from those films is on the BR books and not a personal benefit of BR's directors/previous owners.

In the same way that Star Wars was making money for Lucasfilm even before the Fox acquisition.

[Darkstream]

Originally Posted by doctor_who

JJ Abrams saved Star Trek.

I wouldn't disagree with that either. the 2009 film was great. Perfect recasting of iconic characters. Great reboot with connection to past continuity. I just hate the path it took with the two followup films.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by MechaGodzilla

Thank god it wasn't Disney!

Not surprised that Warners appear have won the race though, they're desperate for some successful new IP to call their own. I mean, all the studios are always searching for the next big thing, but Warners in particular seem to be the most needy with all those big franchise misfires they've had in recent years (Tarzan, Man from Uncle, King Arthur, any non-Matrix Wachowski movie etc). I know they've got Lego and Potter but they seem to be running those into the ground. They missed out on Bond too (though that may turn out to be a blessing in disguise?) so I guess they figured they'd double down on snaring Jeffrey and his naughty mechanoid.

[mredman]

So Tarzan, King Arthur are franchises now. Also Forgetting about DC and Conjuring Universe too i see

[mwynn]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Not surprised that Warners appear have won the race though, they're desperate for some successful new IP to call their own. I mean, all the studios are always searching for the next big thing, but Warners in particular seem to be the most needy with all those big franchise misfires they've had in recent years (Tarzan, Man from Uncle, King Arthur, any non-Matrix Wachowski movie etc). I know they've got Lego and Potter but they seem to be running those into the ground. They missed out on Bond too (though that may turn out to be a blessing in disguise?) so I guess they figured they'd double down on snaring Jeffrey and his naughty mechanoid.

This deal is all AT&T they need to go all in to cover that 100 billion dollars they paid for Warner. Changes are coming.

[imsounoriginal]

I'm sure a lot of the product from this deal is going into streaming more than actual movies. That's where content creators/providers are focusing most of their effort (and dollars) these days. Get people to subscribe and then get them engaged enough to stay subscribed. Something tells me JJ Abrams and Bad Robot can cook up a show or two that'll do just that.

[mredman]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

I'm sure a lot of the product from this deal is going into streaming more than actual movies. That's where content creators/providers are focusing most of their effort (and dollars) these days. Get people to subscribe and then get them engaged enough to stay subscribed. Something tells me JJ Abrams and Bad Robot can cook up a show or two that'll do just that.

The deal is for everything

[mwynn]

https://observer.com/2019/06/warnerm...katie-mcgrath/

While Abrams is now best known for his big-screen work, WarnerMedia was likely most motivated by what Bad Robot could provide to its upcoming streaming service. On the small screen, Warner Bros. TV now houses Abrams, Berlanti, Mindy Kaling and Ava DuVernay. The studio is also working on a long-term extension for Chuck Lorre. That is a serious roster of content creators that should be able to line WarnerMedia’s over-the-top platform with attractive original programming. Similar to Disney acquiring Fox mainly to compete with Netflix, think of WarnerMedia and Bad Robot’s deal as a signal that the streaming wars are now a full-blown blood bath.

AT&T currently has $171 billion in debt, though CEO Randall Stephenson has pledged to correct this by 2022. At the same time, WarnerMedia is widely expected to reclaim exclusive broadcasting rights to popular library content such as Friends, which Netflix is licensing for a hefty $100 million throughout 2019, at the end of the year.

To date, Bad Robot’s $500 million payday is the most lucrative overall deal in the game (Bad Robot’s deals in 2006 guaranteed Abrams “just” $55 million to $65 million, per the Times).


According to The New York Times, WarnerMedia will enjoy a first-look deal with projects developed by Bad Robot, which will cover film, TV, video games, consumer products, music and digital content. Yet at this time, it is unknown if there is a similar non-compete clause built into the language of the deal. Given Paramount’s frustration with Abrams’ lack of availability due to Star Wars, it’s hard to believe WarnerMedia would want him on the open market. Then again, with the abundance of eager suitors, Bad Robot held all the leverage.

[ManOfTheForest]

Originally Posted by The Sovereign

Besides First Contact, I agree with that. Abrams has done some good and some bad work for Trek, which makes him no different than a long line of people who have been involved with it. At least he didn't trot out some more geezers or use Michael Bolton for theme music.

I was going to say that large parts of First Contact are an exception but I got suddenly lazy. :P

I like TNG but it was always a wishy-washy. And the films look like TV episode.

I don’t like some of what Abrams did - pairing up Spock and Uhuara, sidelining Bones - but I like that he didn’t want to be to bound by the canon which was one of the reasons I thought he was the best man for to kick off the Star Wars sequels.

Then he goes and does the opposite by taking no risks and doing nothing new in TFA.

[Darkstream]

Originally Posted by ManOfTheForest

I don’t like some of what Abrams did --- but I like that he didn’t want to be to bound by the canon which was one of the reasons I thought he was the best man for to kick off the Star Wars sequels.

Then he goes and does the opposite by taking no risks and doing nothing new in TFA.

Bingo.

[stvn1974]

I haven't liked anything Abrams has been attached to except the five seasons of Fringe (which is my second favorite TV series of all time behind Twin Peaks). And the only involvement he had in that was writing the theme song and coming up with the idea of the pilot. Alias was pretty good for the first couple of seasons but the last two were so bad that it ruined the entire thing. I actually liked The Force Awakens but the stink of The Last Jedi has soured me on that film as well.

[spanky87]

Originally Posted by stvn1974

I haven't liked anything Abrams has been attached to except the five seasons of Fringe (which is my second favorite TV series of all time behind Twin Peaks). And the only involvement he had in that was writing the theme song and coming up with the idea of the pilot. Alias was pretty good for the first couple of seasons but the last two were so bad that it ruined the entire thing. I actually liked The Force Awakens but the stink of The Last Jedi has soured me on that film as well.

Actually, he also wrote 6 episodes throughout the first two seasons.

[stvn1974]

Originally Posted by spanky87

Actually, he also wrote 6 episodes throughout the first two seasons.

I looked the episodes up and Orci and Kurtzman also worked on some of those episodes and they are worse than Abrams so I am just declaring them flukes. Abrams being awful still stands.